Updated October 30, 2017 at 9:15 AM;Posted February 13, 2015 at 7:52 PM

Damage to wetlands caused by canals, such as seen here around the Delacroix community, was the focus of the failed lawsuit by the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East. (Ted Jackson, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune archives)

A federal judge on Friday (Feb. 13) dismissed a controversial wetlands damage lawsuit filed by the east bank levee authority against more than 80 oil, gas and pipeline companies, ruling that the authority failed to make a valid claim against the energy firms.

The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East contended that dredging of navigation canals and other actions by the companies caused wetland damage that reduced or would reduce the effectiveness of the recently-rebuilt levee system protecting most of metro New Orleans.

The suit attempted to get the energy companies to either repair the damage or pay damages to the authority, with the money used to improve the levee system.

But U.S. District Court Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown found that the levee authority's standing as a third party to federal and state permits granted to the energy companies was not strong enough to justify a financial claim against the companies.

Friday's ruling was praised by Greg Beuerman, a spokesman for Shell, Chevron and BP, which were all defendants in the suit.

"We are gratified by this ruling to dismiss this ill-conceived, unwise and divisive litigation, which we have contended all along was nothing more than an attempt to subvert the existing legal and regulatory processes," Beuerman.

The ruling also was praised by the administration of Gov. Bobby Jindal, who opposed the suit.

"We appreciate the judge's ruling and are pleased that this frivolous lawsuit has come to an end," said Shannon Bates, deputy communications director for the governor. "We've maintained that this was not a claim SLPFA had the authority to bring, and we are glad the court agreed."

Stephen Estopinal, president of the levee authority, expressed disappointment with the ruling.

"I'm disappointed, but that's how life is sometimes," he said, adding that the authority would have to discuss the ruling with its attorneys before deciding on whether to file an appeal with the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"I don't think this is the last word on the subject. We're in this fight for the long haul," said James Swanson, one of the attorneys representing the authority.

Brown ruled against several arguments used by the levee authority.

First, the companies were not negligent under the terms of three federal laws cited by the authority, and could not be held to a greater standard of "strict liability," the ruling said.

Brown found that while the energy companies agreed that they might have a duty to abide by the federal Rivers and Harbors Act, Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act, all of which govern coastal erosion, the levee authority "has not demonstrated that it is the intended beneficiary of any duties imposed upon defendants under" any of those laws.

Brown also disagreed with the levee authority's attempt to find the energy companies liable under provisions of Louisiana law governing the flow of water over property, which is called "natural servitude of drain". The levee authority contended that the energy companies were responsible for storm surge posing an increased threat to the levees because of the erosion the companies caused.

But the state law is written to protect downstream landowners from problems caused by upstream users, and the levees are on higher ground. Brown said several cases cited by the authority did not adequately support their position turning that provision of the law around.

"Having found no guidance from the civil code or the case law in support of plaintiff's position, the court is compelled to conclude that plaintiff has not and cannot state a viable claim for natural servitude of drain," Brown wrote in her ruling.

Brown also ruled that the authority's claims that the energy companies' actions amounted to a private or public nuisance under state law also wasn't proven, in part because the authority "has not sufficiently alleged that it is a 'neighbor,' within any conventional sense of the word to any property of defendants."

Finally, Brown found that the levee authority failed to show the energy companies were in "breach of contract" resulting from violations of permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for dredging canals since the authority failed to prove that the dredging permits were contracts.

"Even if the permits were construed as contracts, however, plaintiff has not and cannot establish that it is an intended third party beneficiary under the terms of the permits," she said.

Brown's ruling may also bring to an end the controversial contingency fee contract between the levee authority and the team of attorneys representing it. That agreement included a provision allowing the attorneys to receive up to 32.5 percent of any financial award resulting from the suit, and to be paid the full cost of expenses if the contract was cancelled without a ruling on the suit.

However, the provisions of that contract may continue until a final ruling was made by an appeals court, if the authority were to appeal Brown's ruling.